In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris, Charlie Hebdo has, to many, become a shining symbol for the true spirit of free speech. The debate over what status Charlie, which is not without flaws, should occupy in the hierarchy of noble martyrs for one of the most celebrated of fundamental rights. Freedom of speech* (like "women's rights") is something that everyone is "supposed to" get behind, and something that most world leaders purport to support, even while they are quite purposefully acting to suppress it.
But what exactly are people saying when they show their support for freedom of speech? Do they have a concrete idea of what they are referring to? Or are they simply cheering for a vague idea that they feel stands for the good of society and the people? On top of that, does everyone have the same idea of what "freedom of speech" means?
As for the last question, I'm pretty sure even freedom of speech experts don't completely agree on a clear and concrete boundary that everyone (or most everyone) would perceive the same way. Different laws have slightly different interpretations of freedom of speech as well. Under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), freedom of speech can be restricted if it is provided by law and is necessary for "respect of the rights or reputations of others" or for "the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals." In addition, any propaganda for war and "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" must be prohibited. Basically, restrictions on free speech are permitted only under specific circumstances and must be spelled out, but at the same time, there are certain categories of speech that parties to the treaty are obliged to prohibit.
The U.S. Constitution generally protects "more" speech, so to speak, than the ICCPR. First Amendment jurisprudence is more than complicated, and everything I say here is an oversimplification, but basically the types of speech that the government can restrict is relatively limited. The categorical bans are incitement to lawless action that meet the Brandenburg test, fighting words (which are words likely to elicit violence from the person against whom the words are directed), and obscenity. Notably, for speech to be banned for incitement to illegal action, it must be directed to incite imminent lawless action. Under the ICCPR, incitement to violence does not have to be imminent to be banned; rather, if it is the advocacy of racist or religiously hostile ideology, it must be banned regardless of imminence.
Where to draw the line on speech that is offensive--particularly speech that is hostile to racial, religious, or other minorities--has always been a topic of controversy. Some people take freedom of speech to simply mean "I get to say whatever the hell I want and other people's feelings be damned!" There are those, like the many Muslim social media users using the hashtag #JeSuisAhmed, who, despite being insulted by this brand of freedom of speech, support the right for others to ridicule their religion. Others, like the Pope, don't think people should insult other people's religions...or at least, think that people should expect violence when they insult other people's religions.
People who say offensive and hateful things love to pull the "freedom of speech" card. And the vast majority of times, they should have the right to say the despicable things they say, even if it involves insulting someone's religion. But they should also be prepared to bear the backlash. Ideas are meant to be expressed, and when there is something wrong about them, they are supposed to be called out--for being bigoted, for being harmful to society, or perhaps for being disrespectful to another human being. People who express their ideas--whether offensive or not--should know they need to be strong enough to take on criticism and opposing ideas. And they should know that others exercising free speech against them is not an assault on their free speech rights.
Of course, threats or acts of violence against a speaker (as opposed to criticisms or even insults) are a completely different matter. No one--whether speaking for a noble cause or spewing hateful rhetoric--should need to fear for their or their loved ones' physical safety. But people who say offensive things and then get indignant that their freedom of speech is being threatened when others criticize them are very often people who belong to socially privileged classes. They should know that they do not receive the same kinds of threats that are directed against persons belonging to less privileged classes who express views that very few reasonable people would consider offensive, even if disagreeable. Rather, they use speech to further marginalize the marginalized and are surprised when people react critically. On the other hand, when the marginalized (for example, female gamers) engage in speech to fight marginalization, they often risk threats of violence.
But back to speech that is offensive. I think the key to a right balance comes not from a rule defining the boundaries of free speech (i.e., what should be legally permissible) but from a moral understanding as to what should or shouldn't be said. Now, I don't expect everyone to agree on which comment goes too far and which one stays within the proper boundaries. However, when we find speech offensive, we should all condemn the content as offensive and not stay silent merely because we believe the speaker has the right to say it. In other words, we can still express that the speaker should not say something even if he can without banning the offensive speech.
Freedom of speech is a great power that comes with great responsibility. Sure, you may have the right to say (pretty much) "whatever the hell you want," but that doesn't mean that you should or abuse that freedom. I mean, there are plenty of things we could do but don't for a variety of reasons. "Not abusing" doesn't amount to "self-censoring." It just allows every person to take a moment to think about what their words may mean to another person or what kind of impact they may have. Sometimes, the goal is to offend or to provoke, and that is the beauty of free speech. But let's not forget that offending and provoking isn't always that great. And when it isn't, let's make sure that we call it out as strongly as we support free speech.
*"Freedom of speech" is sometimes used to refer to a part of and at other times interchangeable with "freedom of expression." Here, I will generally use these terms interchangeably unless otherwise stated.
